Two More Wars that won't need Soldiers

Bush is cooking up 2 more wars.

Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."

In the past, I've felt pretty secure knowing that we didn't have enough troops to start more wars. I wondered where we'd get the troops to go into other countries, but this answers those qiestions... No wonder he was so sure there'd be no need for a draft.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
.......... In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."
In the past, I've felt pretty secure knowing that we didn't have enough troops to start more wars. I wondered where we'd get the troops to go into other countries, but this answers those qiestions... No wonder he was so sure there'd be no need for a draft.

Thats 100% political suicide....

Not only on American soil, but also the world.

Imagine the outcome if Bush use nukes. The world will change forever.

I mean seriously, Bush ain't really that stupid not to know the outcome of using Nukes

Originally posted by Humster
Thats 100% political suicide....

I agree with you 100%

I mean seriously, Bush ain't really that stupid not to know the outcome of using Nukes

Keep telling yourself that. If we were talking about a rational person, I would feel pretty safe in agreeing with you. But we aren't. We're talking about an unstable personality whose ship is sinking. We're talking about a man who has nothing to lose, the most dangerous kind of person there is. And if you put this together with some other news stories that are coming out yesterday and today, well, the picture begins to look pretty grim. To me, anyway...

Bush threatens defense bill veto and warning on prisoner detainment regulation

The White House on Friday threatened to veto a $440.2 billion defense spending bill in the Senate because it wasn't enough money for the
Pentagon and also warned lawmakers not to add any amendments to regulate the treatment of detainees or set up a commission to probe abuse.

Administration to examine new measures against Syria

President Bush and his top aides are weighing new steps against
Syria, according to U.S. officials involved in Middle East policy. Bush's national security team is due to meet Saturday to review policy toward Syria, the officials said. Options range from tougher economic sanctions to limited military action.

Rice defends use of force

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice overnight defended the use of military force to advance the cause of democracy and liberty as "the only guarantee of true stability and lasting security".

"In a world where evil is still very real, democratic principles must also be backed with power in all its forms: political and economic, cultural and moral, and yes, sometimes military," Ms Rice said in a speech at Princeton University in the north eastern state of New Jersey.

Given the current state of things, I'm not at all confident that 'political suicide' means a damn thing to Mr. Bush right now. This may get a lot worse before (if ever) it gets better.

BH, not sure I agree with many of the statements made in that article. And mostly that "the US is instigating a war with Iran or North Korea...." I don't believe this. Just like Iraq, the US has been quite patient with both Iran and NK to come clean, for YEARS. If they had both done that years ago, and developed the world's trust in them more, who knows. By now they both might have many more nuclear power plants.

Interestingly in Iran's case, they really don't need nuclear power as much with the amount of oil they are sitting on. Some claim Iran has the second largest reserves in the world. This makes their persistence in refusing the IAEA access to certain areas highly suspect, and this has been happening for years. If they really don't need the nuclear power, why insist to the point of dropping out of the NPT and banning the IAEA? What is suggested here is they have alterior motives, and IMO rightly so.

Knowing of Iran's desire to wipe out Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran will most definately not be tolerated by Israel. This is why Israel has recently stated "they will do it themselves if they have to," and they might find themselves doing just that. In fact, it almost makes more sense from several angles that Israel preemptive strike Iran if needed, without direct US involvement:

1) It is Israel's problem mostly, so they should deal with it. And I'm sure some will argue that it is the fear of Iran selling or providing nukes to terrorists that would cause preemptive strikes. But if you want to argue that, I think you'd better take a look at the Russian arsenal, and it's high vulnerability to sabotage and theft.

2) No direct US involvement means less chance of world powers like Russia and China stepping in, IMO. Although we shouldn't forget about the Russian scientists already there. A few hundred dead Russian scientists, and millions lost in Russian investments is not going to sit too well with Russia, no matter which way this goes. But at least if the US is not directly involved, the chances will be greater that this won't proceed and escalate to a wider confrontation between the biggest world powers.

3) Overall, they are closer to Iran and would have a bit easier time getting to it, especially with a substantial US force occupied with Iraq.

4) The cost issue- It will cost Israel less for these geographic reasons, and at a time when the US is footing the bill for both Katrina and Rita, for starters. We really don't have the disposable funds to engage in another war, even preemptively at the moment. Because whoever preemptively strikes Iran had better be ready for the consequences of such an action, and this could mean all out war- which from the retoric appears to be Iran's intent if struck.

An intersting further read on the consequences of attacking Iran can be found here:
cns.miis.edu...

Cheers,
TA

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just like Iraq, the US has been quite patient with both Iran and NK to come clean, for YEARS. If they had both done that years ago, and developed the world's trust in them more, who knows. By now they both might have many more nuclear power plants.

I know there are basically 2 schools of thought on this and I think we just go to different schools.

I supported the Iraq war completely when I thought they had WMDs and the means to attack us. All the other reasons that have come after that, I don't support, believe or agree with, so any further military actions at this time, I believe would be a huge mistake on our part.

No, we are talking about guys who will be whisked away and hid deep in conrete bunkers with food and clean and water to last for years. The guys who will be whisked away are the ones who don't give a damn to push a button. They will live high on the hog while your children's children suffer their greed. They have Wine and Fish Eggs to last them decades.
Don't think for a moment they won't, the same families, the same companies, the same nations and the same blood stained dollars are behind 2 world wars that killed millions upon millions of people. People Like the Rothschilds who funded both sides at the same time. They're still around, and they don't give a damn, adn the short answer is, Yes they Have, and Yes they will again. If we sit on our collective asses and let them.
Name a period in history when "they" haven't been willing to kill.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by twitchy]

Don't think for a moment they won't, the same families, the same companies, the same nations and the same blood stained dollars are behind 2 world wars that killed millions upon millions of people. People Like the Rothschilds who funded both sides at the same time. They're still around, and they don't give a damn, adn the short answer is, Yes they Have, and Yes they will again. If we sit on our collective asses and let them.

If a picture speaks a thousand words, then this filled the library.

What I think a lot of people don't realize is the extent and history associated with these same families, corporations, control freaks [for lack of a better phrase that would encapsulate the entirety].

Prominent control and intercession into the late 1800 and early 1900s[and prior], before during and after the economic recessions, and moreso still today.

Behind the scenes, behind the curtains lie the true wizards of aaaahs. 12m8keall2c

Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and the list goes on and on and on . . . I don't know how much text [how many names] you can put into a U2U?!

[edit on 10/1/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

The inmates are running the asylum in DC. :shk:

It's not like Bush has to worry about an upcoming election or anything. I'd be willing to bet that we'll have a Democrat selected in '08. And it'll probably be the Dragon Lady--aka Hillary Clinton.

I wonder if maybe things are going this way on purpose so people will vote Democrat...seems like nothing's by accident in politics....

If the Bush administration do that, they are crazy!

This action could lead us to world war 3!! So this is why I'm sure that he won't do that. What could he gain from that?


(mod edit- please do not try to beat the censors)

[edit on 2-10-2005 by asala]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
If the Bush administration do that, they are fu***** crazy!

This action could lead us to world war 3!! So this is why I'm sure that he won't do that. What could he gain from that?

Very good question. Cui bono--who benefits?

I wonder what the Bushbots think of their Savior of America now...?

OK... First off i want to state that i do not like Bush!

I do not agree with the war in Iraq!

I would not want to see America and/or any other country go into another pointless war over weapons that don’t exist!

But...

After reading the link, that you provided, i can find nothing but one mans speculation.

He has no proof. Not one shred. No documentation, no witness, nothing!

It is completely without substance and i feel that this is something you just want to believe because (in your own mind) it strengthens your anti Bush feelings.

Now don’t get me wrong... I have anti Bush feelings. I believe the war in Iraq was a sham. I believe he was to slow to act over Katrina.

But...

Take this comment of mine...

"I believe that Bush is too gun ho and that there may be the potential for another war while he is in power"

Now... this is just my feelings... i am not stating that as a fact!

If it was a fact i would say...

"Bush is going to start another war"

I would then go on to provide links to news sites, documentation, interviews... Anything, that could be seen as some kind of proof!

With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations

Now... I am not an expert in US politics but i know of no plans to revamp the war doctrine to include the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries!!

If this is true, Mr Paul Craig Roberts, then please provide us with some proof.

If i placed an artical on my website stating the Bush intended to invade New Zealand with trained monkeys and pixies, and provided no proof, would you believe me???


I feel that one of the main problems we have in this world is that everyone has to place themselves in camps and then defend that camp no matter what, ridiculous nonsense and childish rhetoric, there camp may spout. And this is always backed up by blindly loyal sheeple who just shout "right on brother" with out actually stopping and thinking about it.


The far right is a prime example of this. The amount of racists crap i see on ATS that is backed up by idiots who you cannot have a debate with. They just spout nonsense and provide links to some of the most obscure websites i have ever seen. Good example of this is...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


If i am wrong and there is some "leaked document" or "disgruntled US official" or any kind of evidence/proof to back up these claims then please, someone, provide me with a link.

Benevolent Heretic... This is not a stab at you so please don’t take offence.

I to am worried about the things you mentioned. I just feel that you need something more solid than one mans opinion.

What I see is BushCo paving the way for preemptive nuclear strikes. No one said it would happen tomorrow.

They want to be able to point and shoot when they think the time is right.

Originally posted by undercoverchef
After reading the link, that you provided, i can find nothing but one mans speculation.

You're right, it is an opinion piece, and that's why I didn't use the title of the piece for the title of the thread. I thought it was a bit strong.

It is completely without substance and i feel that this is something you just want to believe because (in your own mind) it strengthens your anti Bush feelings.

I see your point but I think my anti-Bush (as president) feelings are about as strong as they're going to get. And I don't think the piece is entirely without substance. It's a very real possibility that has been in discussion here and elsewhere for some time.

If i placed an artical on my website stating the Bush intended to invade New Zealand with trained monkeys and pixies, and provided no proof, would you believe me???

No, because I would judge it as outlandish. This story sounds logical to me and explains a lot of questions and confirms a lot of suspicions I've had. You're right, it may be total BS. I don't insist you believe it. It's just an interesting explanation of what might be to come in the 'war on terror'.

Benevolent Heretic... This is not a stab at you so please don’t take offence.

No offense taken, at all.

Perhaps it's in the wrong forum (mods?), but I thought the war on terror would be the obvious choice, since it very well may be the next step taken.


[edit on 2-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

It is true that the Bush administration has, with the approval of Congress, initiated an offensive war.

But what are the options?

A defensive war (in this case, one without the invasion of those countries that support international terrorism), would only result in many more 9-11's in the United States and Europe.

Another often overlooked point...

For good or bad, a key reason why the US is in Iraq and striving to turn it into a democracy, is to defend the nation of Israel.

I see no evidence that the Bush administration would order the use of nuclear weapons. They haven't done so in Afghanistan or Iraq. But there is a very strong possibility of an eventual invasion of Iran. Why? Because it is clearly evident in news reports that Iran is instrumental in furthering insurrections in Iraq.

If the US pulls out of Iraq now, then the Iran-backed forces there will take over.

Do we really want that to happen?

It would result in more terrorist strikes in Europe and the US.

All those who are afraid of nuclear proliferation should keep in mind that with every major terrorist strike in the US and Europe: the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons will be used on those countries that support international terrorism.

In weighing both sides of the equation, it is better to have a conventional, non-nuclear war -- as is going on now -- than to have a nuclear strike on Iran (and possibly also Syria, who is their ally) as the result of a series of major terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States.

As far as North Korea is concerned, the US won't invade them because they are militarily backed by Red China.

The problem is being resolved slowly and steadily, and this is a much better scenario than facing a nuclear holocaust


[edit on 2-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]

In my own personal opinion there is simply no way that the United States government would employ the use of any form of nuclear munitions in a conflict between either North Korea or Iran. Support for such conflicts are incredibly low at present. The level of exposure regarding the situation in Iran is nowhere near that which preceded the occupation of Iraq. Given that many feel that justification for that conflict was lacking or misleading, I feel confident that any conflict in our immediate future would be very much a by-the-book affair with an emphasis on creating as little controversy as possible. The public, as well as the United State's allies, will accept nothing less, in my opinion.

Given this, there is no chance that America will utilise nuclear weapons to any extent whatsoever. The instant this were to happen, all support for the conflict, even if it were fully justified and supported by the international community, is completely destroyed. The reaction amongst the American people would be fierce as they realised that their government had just become the only country in sixty years to use nuclear munitions on its enemies. Reaction amongst America's allies would, I believe, be equally as scathing. It is simply too difficult to justify the use of nuclear weapons in combatting an enemy which is both well below your own level of military advancement and not a nuclear nation themselves.

I am an Australian and consider the United States to be our greatest ally after New Zealand. I fully support the War on Terror's ideological goals (if not all of its practical applications). Yet I would be hard-pressed to support the use of nuclear weapons, even if they were simply nuclear-tipped bunker buster munitions. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent and, as insane as many people believe George Bush to be, I am quite certain that he knows the ramifications of such an action. And if he does not, I have no doubt that his military advisors do.

Let us not forget also that Iran has powerful partners in the region, namely Russia and China. Even though neither of these nations would be willing to engage the United States in a war without massive provocation, it would be practically impossible for them to allow the United States to employ nuclear munitions on the soil of one of their allies, especially if they have questioned the validity of the conflict in the first place. Allowing the United States to get away with this would be tantamount to diplomatic suicide, as you would effectively be giving the US a moratorium to do whatever it wished in the international sphere, mindless of the consequences.

For these reasons, I do not believe that we will see nuclear weapons being brought into the fray in a future conflict with Iran. They simply carry far too much baggage which is not offset by their benefits, which in this scenario would be limited at best.

[edit on 2/10/05 by Jeremiah25]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I see no evidence that the Bush administration would order the use of nuclear weapons. They haven't done so in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Our military is (was) far superior to Afghanistan's and Iraq's. There was no need to 'bring out the big guns'. I think it was thought of as an 'easy victory'. Not necessarily so with Iran and NK. That might be why Bush would consider it.

As far as the rest of your post, we have that darn fundamental difference of opinion.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen for sure, it's just something that strikes a chord with me and I find it to be not out of the realm of possibility.

I agree with you and Jeremiah25 that it would be extremely unwise and dangerous, considering the allies of Iran. But I happen to think a less-than-rational man has his finger on the button.

I hope I'm wrong in my suspicions. I'm not ready to die.

So, Israel bombs the Iranian reactor complex, kicking off a war between Iran and Israel. Problem is that Iran has to march through Iraq to get to Israel, and Israel has arranged for YOUR KIDS to be standing in the way.
In case you haven't figured it out, THIS is why Bush refuses to withdraw troops from Iraq despite there being no WMDs, no proof Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, no evidence Iraq aided Al Qaeda, and clear indications that the people of Iraq want the US to leave. Israel will strike Iran then use YOUR KIDS as a human shield.

Originally posted by Fuhr86
So, Israel bombs the Iranian reactor complex, kicking off a war between Iran and Israel.

So let THEM duke it out. Why are we even meddling in other nations' affairs, anyway?

(I'm an isolationist.)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Our military is (was) far superior to Afghanistan's and Iraq's. There was no need to 'bring out the big guns'. I think it was thought of as an 'easy victory'. Not necessarily so with Iran and NK. That might be why Bush would consider it.

Point well taken.

But I still don't see President Bush ordering the use of nukes on any nation that he has labeled among the "axis of evil."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you and Jeremiah25 that it would be extremely unwise and dangerous, considering the allies of Iran. But I happen to think a less-than-rational man has his finger on the button.

Yes, it is very unwise to use nuclear weapons, for various reasons.

Iran is twice the size of Iraq and would be much harder to conquer than Saddam Hussein's regime was. There aren't any allies of Iran (specifically Syria) that are more formidable than they are. Russia and China won't get actively involved with defending Iran outside of making money from supplying weapons.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I hope I'm wrong in my suspicions. I'm not ready to die.

If we didn't have the fighting going on in the Middle East, the war would be brought to the states and many Americans would face a much higher probability of death through terrorist attack.

Originally posted by Fuhr86
So, Israel bombs the Iranian reactor complex, kicking off a war between Iran and Israel...Israel will strike Iran then use YOUR KIDS as a human shield.

Originally posted by Amethyst
So let THEM duke it out. Why are we even meddling in other nations' affairs, anyway?

(I'm an isolationist.)

Fuhr86 & Amethyst,

I agree with you.

We should let Israel defend itself. As it is, the US government sends millions of taxpayer dollars to Israel every year to boost their defenses -- while our own borders are not secure. Additionally, there are thousands of people in this country and Europe who side with al Qaeda. If we don't secure our borders after a withdrawal from the Middle East, many more severe terrorist attacks will occur in the US.

What we should have done in the FIRST PLACE is close our borders and oust all Muslim extremists -- including only suspected ones. To follow that up with closing all facets of the Muslim religion in the United States; with the enforced policy of having all Muslims convert to a religion or faith or philosophy that does not espouse a JIHAD AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS -- or be forced to leave the country!

To then follow that up by making it PERFECTLY LEGAL for an American citizen to SHOOT TO KILL any suspected Muslim terrorist. (Most Texans would quickly adjust to this idea.)

THESE POLICIES WOULD COMPLETELY AND PERMANENTLY END MUSLIM TERRORISM IN THE US.

But that is not politically correct, so now we have to live in practically a POLICE STATE.

I remember the little-known incident that was generally not reported in the mainstream media:

As the Twin Towers were being destroyed in NYC, many Muslims in the town of Patterson, New Jersey, were literally DANCING IN THE STREETS IN CELEBRATION.

These are hard-earned lessons to be remembered for the future

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]

What makes you or the author think there are no troops available? It still cracks me up to no end that you guys think you know things like the US military readiness.